Posted
by
kdawson
on Friday January 29, 2010 @03:12PM
from the triple-word-score dept.

andylim writes "recombu.com is running an interesting piece about how Apple has created a 'Jumanji (board game) platform.' The 9.7-inch multi-touch screen is perfect for playing board games at home, and you could use Wi-Fi or 3G to play against other people when you're on your own. What would be really interesting is if you could pair the iPad with iPhones, 'Imagine a Scrabble iPad game that used iPhones as letter holders. You could hold up your iPhone so that no one else could see your letters and when you were ready to make a word on the Scrabble iPad board, you could slide them on to the board by flicking the word tiles off your iPhone.' Now that would be cool."

This reminds me of the horrifying carnage of the train wreck that was the GameCube + GBA link cable.

Remember Metroid Prime - you could get some bonus by just connecting Metroid Fusion. And Animal Crossing - just some minigame (again with a bonus incentive) that could easily be presented on the TV instead of on the GBA. Wind Waker - useless except for the ultra-die-hard 100% complete players. Four Swords Adventures or Crystal Chronicles? Yeah, go buy four GBAs, four GameCube link cables, plus the game itself. I bet like Nintendo Apple can't imagine how out of a set of four people one of them could not use an iPhone.

Oh, I disagree. I find it very compelling, and I suspect most people will as well, after using one for only a few moments. Whether that will translate into a sale ($499 is cheap for this type of product, but still a good chunk of cash) is yet to be determined.

The problem right now is the geeks are looking at specs and keywords (multitasking? iPhone OS? No stylus? No e-ink?) and disliking the iPad that they imagine based on that. The trick with Apple is that th

Disclaimer: I am not questioning your opinion, nor am I discrediting it. You are completely entitled to your own thoughts.

No matter what you do, say, or show me, you will never convince me that buying a device as expensive as a full computer but with only half the functionality is a good thing. Paying more and getting less is not a good thing, even if it comes wrapped up in a pretty package.

Lots of people want to be able to use a computer without having to use one. They don't want to ever see the computer geek side of computer ownership. They only want the benefits. Access to the the content they consume etc. Non geek benefits are not the same as geek benefits. Geeks value multi-use, multi-configuration devices and software. Geeks may also value learning complex rituals that they have to use to get the computer to work. Non-geeks want to turn on the device and maybe change the channel.

You're missing the point. No one is trying to convince you that it's a good thing. You have made up your mind, and that's cool

Oh, plenty of people on here have tried, lol.

The point is, your opinion isn't necessarily all that meaningful in the context of the use cases of this device.

That is not true at all. I was actually really excited about this thing, because I've been wanting a straight tablet with no keyboard for a while now. It would be quite handy for diagnostics in the garage, great for gaming/browsing the net while watching TV, double as an e-comic reader...pretty much everything I want in a tablet, the iPad offers.

That being said, I'm not paying $500 or more for a locked down device with no expansion, no external ports, and no multitasking. I'll just wait for some other similarly priced (or cheaper!) tablet that doesn't require permission from the company that built it just so I can use whatever program I want.

Am I the target demographic for the iPad? Not since it's details have been released, I'm not. I certainly was, but I'm not now.

That being said, I'm not paying $500 or more for a locked down device with no expansion, no external ports, and no multitasking. I'll just wait for some other similarly priced (or cheaper!) tablet that doesn't require permission from the company that built it just so I can use whatever program I want.

Like me, you seem to be in the exact opposite demographics as the one targetted by Apple.

So let me just drop a link about Always Innovating's Touch Book [alwaysinnovating.com] that I've found the other day on the web.It's a (non-capacitative) touchscreen tablet which can be docked into a keyboard to form a netbook.It's got plenty of USB ports, both outside (2 free) and inside (3 free) to be used the for modules (the things comes with an USB and a Wifi dongles you can put on 2 inside ports). It's powered by an ARM (the same as the

Ugg, I'm getting tired of hearing this misunderstanding. The iPhone OS is completely, 100% capable of full multitasking and uses multithreading extensively. Apple has chosen to restrict most of its own and all 3rd party applications to run only 1 at a time. Several built-in applications run in the background instead of exiting, such as Safari, Mail and the Phone applications. I do not agree with their decision to do this, however, but understand why they did. In a way, though, I should be thankful that so many people are complaining about this, even not entirely accurately, since I think the negative publicity might be enough to push Apple to change this. Apple isn't completely immune to consumer pressure.

Ugg, I'm getting tired of hearing this misunderstanding. The iPhone OS is completely, 100% capable of full multitasking and uses multithreading extensively. Apple has chosen to restrict most of its own and all 3rd party applications to run only 1 at a time.

Which means that *functionally* it is not capable of multitasking. Apple is selling a device that is hardware+firmware+software. I couldn't care less what the hardware is capable of if the firmware does not allow me to make use of it.

Analogy time: You can raise the tastiest pigs in the world, and cure the awesomest bacon ever known to man, but if I keep kosher, I can't eat it. See, Apple is rabbinical law, and the i~Device hardware is the bacon. Apple only wants you to eat Apple-cured bacon, which isn't made from pigs at all. It's made from hipsters in Apple's secret Cupertino rent-controlled hipster abbatoir. You can't have the regular bacon, which is unfettered hardware.

Wait... The iPad hardware is bacon, and the bacon isn't bacon, but bacon is hardware, and Apple wants you to eat kosher and...

bacon is not kosher, and I am a jew who knows about keeping kosher. your argument is moot, you meshuguna.

Let me try a spin at your bacon analogy. It's more like:

you make awesome bacon, and you'd love to eat it how you want, but apple has said you may only eat tripe, and well...a lot of people don't like tripe.

It doesn't matter what functionality exists if you cannot use it. Car analogy #2 today: Maybe my car can get 100 miles to the gallon, but only if I was capable to drive 100% downhill with the engine of

>And yet you correctly state that the iPhone OS (and the iPad version is the same) don't do multi-task/threading.

Actually, I stated the exact opposite, that the iPhone OS is capable of and almost always has more than one application running at once. Additionally, almost every single app made for the iPhone is multi-threaded.

>And it's one more reason why the iPad isn't even close any kind of ultimate game machine.

Actually, I disagree with this. What benefit does it bring to a game to be running in an

That's interesting. I'd been given to understand that this was a proprietary processor. The only explanation I can think of is that you were actually part of the A4 or iPhone OS team.

And yet you correctly state that the iPhone OS (and the iPad version is the same) don't do multi-task/threading.

Okay, you weren't on the OS team, and you have some reading comprehension difficulties, otherwise, you wouldn't have said that, given that the GP actually went to some pains to point out the OS does do multitasking/multithreading, and he's correct. So, that leaves the A4 team.

The most expensive "board" game (i.e. NOT a tabletop game) that I have bought was Hero Quest. It was worth every penny.

I dunno...I mean, i could see how SOME board games might work ok on an iPad, and I could definitely see board games made specifically for it...but, much like reading digital comics isn't quite teh same as the real thing...

Oh man, I didn't realize anyone else knew about Hero Quest. I just got incredible nostalgia from your post. I used to make all my non-nerd friends come over and play Hero Quest for my birthdays when I was a kid. Either that or the board game version of Civilization.

Eventually the computer version of Civilization came out, but I still prefer the board game format to be honest. I'm not sure how well Hero Quest would survive the transition to an iPad, given that the plastic figurines were half the visual/t

What board games are you buying and where are you shopping? Last time I checked Scrabble and Monopoly were still in the sub-20 dollar range. Even Axis and Allies is 40-50 bucks. Even if they were 100 bucks you could buy 10-20 of them for the cost of an iPad and 3 iPhones.

Runewars [boardgamegeek.com] for the Casual gamer? Give me a fucking break. I've never heard of it, and when I looked at the # of pieces that comes with the game, I thought it made Axis and Allies look like Candyland.

Runewars includes:

* 40-page instruction guide
* Nearly two hundred highly-detailed plastic miniatures
* Over two hundred tokens
* Over two hundred cards, both small and standard sized

I think he meant to say, dedicated board gamers. The kind of people who go to boardgamegeek.com or hang out in the Fantasy Flight forums. People who know the difference between German style boardgames and American style board games.

These are people for whom the board game is the first resort, not the last. People who will deliberately make time for board games. (Think John Locke on Lost.)

Monopoly isn't dreadful just because you don't understand its appeal to other people. Some games provide tense competition through skilled play, some provide social interaction through leisurely random or skill-less play. People who like the first may find the latter pointless and frustrating. So what? The reverse is probably true too.

I cannot stand most games, but will play card or mah jongg solitaire games every day. They relax me. Hunt and shoot games bore me to tears. I have tried to play them, but they

When dedicated boardgamers say Monopoly is "dreadful," they are referring to a few specific structural problems with the game: a) The limited opportunity for players to meaningfully influence the outcome of the game through their decisions (auction bids and house purchase timing is pretty much it)b) The very limited number of winning strategies (buy orange and build like crazy is pretty much it)c) the outcome is clear long before the win conditions are met, which makes for a dreadfully boring endgame.

What board games are you buying and where are you shopping? Last time I checked Scrabble and Monopoly were still in the sub-20 dollar range. Even Axis and Allies is 40-50 bucks.

Those are some pretty old games. True, there are also many recent boardgames are also in the $20-$30 price bracket, but there are also a lot that cost $50+ even for just the basic game. With expansions, many games can easily cost more than $100. Even good old Settlers of Catan can get close to $200 if you buy all the expansions.

The basic ASL rulebook costs $100, and that's without any boards. Get Beyond Valor as well, and you're close to $200. I'm sure there are people who've spent more than $1000 on that game. (Hm... porting VASL to the iPad could be a very good idea.)

Speaking of games that people spend $1000s on, what about Magic the Gathering? Playing that on a couple of automated boards so you don't have to buy all the cards, could save you a fortune.

From my perspective, owning an iPhone, the iPad is just 'meh' for me. I like the bigger display, but I work from home (telecommute), so I've already got a 27" screen for big stuff, and my iPhone for mobile work. No real need for anything in between.

That said, pop an extra $250 bucks, and you get kindle capabilities + everything that the iPhone offers (sans the voice cell capabilities), meaning music, video, games, apps, location tools/utilities, etc. To my mind, that at least makes for an interesting combination. I think it's largest market will be in games, and books, and maybe a smattering of video and movies for those folks on the go (travelers or mobile babysitters to keep occupied on long trips). If board games become a common app for this, instead of paying $20-$99 bucks for them, you could easily end up with a $5-$10 dollar app store equivalent. Buy more than a few, and you've paid for your investment.

It's just a more versatile than a piece of cardboard.

Will I buy one? No (see above for 'meh' factor). I just don't have a need for it, but I can see the appeal.

Why not mail it? Because he is used to using bluetooth, because just about every other device except the Jesusphone accepts bluetooth file transfer. Why should he have to change his habits and workflow because Apple decided to only implement a subset of a standard?

Those expensive board games are not exactly Candy Land or Monopoly. My most expensive game is StarCraft: The Board Game which retails for $80 and after you add in the Brood War expansion, I'm out over $100 for that game, but it is worth every bit of it. I admit that I was hesitant at first to spend that much on game when my most expensive board game prior to that was maybe $10-$20. You get a whole lot in the game in terms of tokens, miniatures, cards, etc all very high quality, not to mention many, many

Your comparison doesn't seem to be accurate. The article is trying to promote ipad's use as a board game. The argument is more like the other way around. Why is someone saying that instead of x, we should buy y (not even remotely related product).

This is like buying a ferrari as a day to day traffic car because the driver's seat is extremely comfortable

I too carry around a Scrabble and Risk board with me everywhere I go. It may be a pain to carry the large boxes and bags of tiny pieces to work, out at a bar with friends, to the park, out on dates and whatnot. But at least I'm not one of those suckers with an iPad—they can play board games anywhere at any time with their friends, but they had to pay so much. They probably don't use their iPads for anything other than board games. Like yourself, I don't want to give up carrying around board game boxes everywhere just to look 'cool' or to 'fit in' like those Mac cultists.

So what do you do with your cardboard monopoly or chess board when you are half way through a game and the captain says to return to your seats, place the tray tables in the upright locked position and prepare for landing? I guess it's game over.

With an iPad, you could save the game, put it back in your hand luggage, then get it out and resume the game in the taxi to the hotel.

I agree with the article. I think the iPad presents a great opportunity to play board games with friends in a more convenient way.

No, it isn't. Not for all situations. The iPad is a bit pricey at the moment but in the future when they're cheaper (and/or used) I could see this actually being quite good for the kids to play checkers in the backseat of the car or on a flight.1) No pieces to lose2) Bored of checkers? It can hold a few hundred other games.3) Related to #1: also no pencils/pens/crayons floating around/getting lost/poking people in tender placesHonestly, I'd rather have the kids in the backseat playing games instead of watching movies the whole time.

Napoleon in Europe cost me $80, Diplomacy cost me $60, Settlers of Catan with expansions cost me $180 ($45 x 3 + $15 x 3), Through the Ages costs $70 right now, History of the World was $65. Some of us like good board games. (I own all of those except Through the Ages and History of the World, which a friend owns).

I have not even mentioned any games by Games Workshop. If you include them, the iPad + Phones would be cheaper...

There's one other advantage when you're learning a game, which is that the computerised one will enforce rules which you missed, or mis-interpreted. Of course, this becomes a disadvantage when you've played the game a few times and want to try some house rules.

So for only $499 + $299/phone, you can play a $75 board game electronically!

That depends on how many board games you buy. If you buy specialty board games as apps on iTunes Store, it might be cheaper than buying them as cardboard on, say, MyAtomic.com. Notice how albums cost $9.99 on iTunes Store vs. $13.99 on CD at Walmart* because there's no cost of pressing, packaging, shipping, and retailing discs.

Lets say you save 5$ a game. You would have to purchase 100 board games to cover your costs, not to mention power and the fact that your iPad wont last 30 years. I have Risk, Monopoly, Scrabble, and Trivial persuit that are almost that old.

If you have 3 or 4 different game groups are you going to buy enough iPhones that each person can have one?

I think the idea is that the game publisher puts out a "controller" for Android and a "controller" for iPod Touch/iPhone, and you get whatever "controller" matches the handsets your players already have.

Well, assuming for some reason you've got an aversion against or unusual obstacle to using WiFi, you could use a phone that costs around $50. At least, that's what I do with my laptop and a Nokia 2865 (via bluetooth DUN). It's not 3G speeds, which means you don't want to be pushing video over it, but for sending model data between games it should work just fine.

As for the rest of the economics... yeah, if you're just going to buy one board game, it probably doesn't make a lot of

For $499 + $299/phone you can play every $75 board game electronically, and watch video in your lap, and surf the web, and take calls (though not conveniently), and control your other home devices.

Ignore the cost of the phone. Everyone has a phone (well, everyone who counts, anyway, and soon that will be everyone for all practical values of "everyone"). Lets say $50 can be cut of the cost of the game by removing packaging and printing. Ten games at $25 each and you're ahead of the g

In fact, everything YOU mentioned are things that Apple may or may not approve.

My point was just that looking at it as a "board game player" is silly and unrealistic.

Particularly with the whole "ooooh then you can link the iPhones to it!" line of reasoning - now everyone who comes over to my place to play games needs some sort of smart phone? Lots of my friends are broke mofos.

Oh sure, the closed source nature of it kills the utility, though I'm sure the DRM folks salivate at the thought of a ubiquitously accepted storage device that can be locked down.

I was looking at the potential capabilities that the hardware offers.

As for "broke mofos", I did note (sarcastically) that "everyone" will have a phone, for all practical values of "everyone". Crap, I know poor kids who have phones to keep in touch with their parents between home and school -- not iPhones, of course, but phones cap

I don't think I play a single board game with a board that small. Zoom in and out? Scroll around? Everything smaller? No thanks. A lot of my board game time is great just because I'm unplugged anyway.

If I were alone, maybe then I could see it. The less than ideal experience would be o.k. compared to not being able to play at all. But to sit around with phones out to 'hold' tiles and play the game on a little screen doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Depends how you do it, most board games don't require you to have both precision and wide view at the same time. But, until this sort of thing comes way under the $100 mark I can't imagine it catching on for that purpose. Sure it might be a nice added value, but definitely not a perfect board game platform.

I know Scrabble is one where I certainly want to be able to take in the whole board at once. And I want to be looking at different parts than the other players, without them knowing what I'm focused on.

The desire to keep what I'm looking at to myself is true of a lot of games.

I'd like to see one of these table sized interfaces we've seen used this way. I know it's been done with d&d [boingboing.net]. That would be cool for board games.

Or you could read a book. You could buy all sorts of books before you would come close to the price of the iPad + e-book purchases.

Or you could listen to a CD. You could buy all sorts of CDs before you would come close to the price of the iPad +.MP3/AAC/whatever purchases.

Or you could watch a movie. You could buy all sorts of DVDs before you would come close to the price of the iPad + digital video purchases.

Funny thing is, a large and growing number of us have small music players, e-book readers, watch movies/TV on our laptops, play assorted multi-player games, etc. - all on hardware comparable in price to the iPad.

Between a convenient play-everything device and some bulk storage to off-load under-used content, those of us realizing it's 2010 already LIKE the idea of replacing boxfulls of atoms with a few cubic inches of bits.

Or, you know, you could get an actual Scrabble board, and not have to spend a couple thousand dollars to play to play a $20 game with three friends. You can even flick the tiles at the board, if you want. For free!

Heck, my take is that even Microsoft's "big ass table" is too small and too low-resolution for complex highly-social board games. And they're the ones that could benefit most from adding a computer into the mix.

'Imagine a Scrabble iPad game that used iPhones as letter holders. You could hold up your iPhone so that no one else could see your letters and when you were ready to make a word on the Scrabble iPad board, you could slide them on to the board by flicking the word tiles off your iPhone.'

I'm imagining a large amount of wasted money for people who don't have at least one of the components...and if everyone has to be present anyway, why not just use a regulate board? Costs to develop the thing would be pointless as well.

I can see people having fun with board games on the iPad but I'm not sure it really trumps a real board game. Most board games aren't overly expensive as it is.

But what I do think the iPad could be really good at is custom audio controller interfaces. More and more of these interfaces are starting to show up on computers, but much of the mouse/keyboard input doesn't really match the real life use of tweaking knobs and levers. Multi-touch on a larger screen is a much better translation of this, and given how much physical audio controllers can cost, a few software reproductions of them could end up being a cost benefit for users.

Board games come with cards, dice, plastic & metal things and usually need more space than a small rectangle. Perhaps it does allow decent simulations of board games, but at $499 (+ whatever the app store slaps on top for a game) it bloody well ought to.

Yeah, rich people with tons of cash to burn who care more about technology than connecting with family would see this as a great board game platform. The rest of us will continue to enjoy the company of our friends and family with decidedly low-tech but perfectly useful cardboard, and focus more on the interactions and fun than the tech and "ooh ahh" factor.

This is really stretching. It seems people are going to obscene lengths to try to make the iPad look less ho-hum that it really is.

The 9.7-inch multi-touch screen is perfect for playing board games at home....

I guess if you just play Chess, Go, and maybe the occasional game of Monopoly, it might be perfect for you. Maybe. I'd hate to play Chess on such a small board and I would loathe to play Go. If you're really into board games it's obviously crap for most games. The big problem: "screen" size. Most board games use a play area that is significantly larger than the 10" diagonal that the iPad offers. I can see different parts of the board in detail with the fastest, most intuitive interface ever: my eyes. Other people playing with my in person can look at other areas simultaneously. If I have a hand of cards, I can see them without needing to simultaneously obscure the board. If I need to move a piece or set of pieces, a touchscreen isn't bad, but a tactile experience is superior and has zero learning curve.

I can envision games that port reasonably well to the iPad. I can envision "board" games designed specifically for the iPad that rock. Something like Microsoft's Surface would really rock for many purposes, but the iPad has a clear portability win. (Of course, the iPhone is even more portable.) There may be merit to board gaming on the iPad. But as the "perfect" solution for playing board games it's laughable.

But an eBook reader really provides convenience of having so many books in one single package that you can take anywhere and read. This pad as a board game, well, wouldn't you still have to at least bring various other game pieces with you, unless of-course, they all can be digital?

Also, you know, you can gift board games to people, and it's not going to make you bankrupt.

I used to play a board game similar to Risk, that had tokens, little standing cards, the value of which were only visible to me. So you have an army and the opponent has an army, you see various soldiers, but you don't know what they are. Some tokens are soldiers, some are mines, there is one that is the flag. The idea is to capture the flag by 'attacking' it. When one player attacks the other, he challenges the opponent's token soldier with his own. Now the soldiers are compared, if one has a higher rank, he wins, the opponent's token is removed. If both are the same rank, both are removed.

Stratego. I assume that you are talking about this game. And yes impossible to play without 2 individual and private screens. Because you have to watch the other player move, and still be able to see all your pieces.

p>They forgot that laptops and netbooks already exist and are more versatile. So what you have is a turkey of a device. Crippled and limited. It's best use will be providing competition. Expect to see new laptops with accelerometers and perhaps touch screens built in. Apart from those two features and the ability to run iPhone apps, the iPad has NO advantages over a common laptop or netbook. As one reviewer said, it's an oversized iPhone without the phone.

"No advantages"? Hmm, let's see... add that nifty touchscreen and accelerometer to your netbook and you STILL have essentially a desktop form factor that's been shrunk down and then joined together with a hinge. Change the screen orientation? Nope. In addition, to keep costs down, you probably have a very poor off-angle viewing experience. Share the device with someone next to you? More like sharing a pair of binoculars than sharing photos. And that keyboard's SO useful while reading emails, browsing web pa

Look, it was a swing, and a miss. If it is about content consumption, it must, 100% must, have flash.

Flash is awful. HTML5 will do all flash can do and more, without sucking my CPU cycles and battery life. My browser blocks flash. Whenever I open flash component, my browser with flash eventually goes to the top of my thread list in terms of processor usage. My CPU fan eventually whirs on.

I think we should boycott flash. If enough people start blocking it, ad producers will be forced to change over to HTML5, which is an open standard.